There’s a lunch spot at the top of the T but I have to cross the stem of the T to reach the top of the T.

Why are they doubling my chances to get hit when they could just add another crosswalk and let me cross one street instead of two? Are they stupid?

    • AspieEgg@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      4·
      2 days ago

      When I was visiting Quebec City, I noticed that their traffic lights would all go red for cars and the pedestrian lights would come on for every direction. People would cross the intersection in whatever way was fastest for them (even diagonally) because the cars all had to wait for pedestrians anyway. It was super nice as someone walking.

      • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 days ago

        The lights here do that as well. It’s an argument I still have with my teens: you should still use the crosswalks as the most visible place to cross, and walk directly across on the shortest path.

        But they recognize all lights are red. If they walk diagonally, they cross both streets at the same time but if they stay in the walk there may not be time

        • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
          2·
          2 days ago

          Yup, a diagonal crosswalk is part of a “pedestrian scramble”. Someone posted the wiki article elsewhere in this post.

          • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            2 days ago

            Sure but you can’t be the only ones doing it. It’s safer to be predictable and visible, follow whatever the local conventions/regulations/laws are

            • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
              5·
              2 days ago

              The scramble is a formal design convention, requiring lights, signage and markings, it’s not a YOLO pedestrian manuever.

    • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
      5·
      3 days ago

      You have a time machine with enough fuel for one jump with coordinates to visit either a young Adolf Hitler or a young Robert Moses. Whom do you chose?

  • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    2·
    2 days ago

    Are they stupid?

    If it doesn’t have traffic lights:

    Crossing the stem is safer, as cars need to slow down and often stop to make the turn, and reducing the crossing of the straight road to only one helps concentrate the required attention to that one crosswalk - a driver can’t miss someone crossing the other crosswalk if it doesn’t exist.

    If it has traffic lights:

    Yes.

    • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
      1·
      2 days ago

      The crosswalk is on the right side of the stem on the top of the T. Right turning traffic is less likely to be checking to their right since they don’t need to worry about traffic coming from the right if they’re turning right.

      Left-turning traffic DOES have to look left, though, so it doesn’t make sense to put it on the right side of that interesection (in the US where we drive on the right)…

  • litchralee@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    4·
    3 days ago

    I can only offer a perspective from my area. In California, every intersection by default creates “unmarked crosswalks” in the parallel and perpendicular directions, except when prohibited by posted signage. This makes it legal for pedestrians to cross in any direction at an intersection, so long as it’s not diagonal and isn’t prohibited.

    With that being the default rule, municipalities will either paint the crosswalk – becoming a “marked crosswalk” – to promote its use (even though paint doesn’t prevent collisions) or will close the crosswalk outright, to steer pedestrians toward other crossing options. The latter is where things get truly messed up.

    Rather than proactively mitigating the dangers to pedestrians, lazy municipalities expect pedestrians to ignore common sense and walk 400 m (1/4 mile) or more out of their way, to find a “safe” crossing at a marked (painted) crosswalk elsewhere. Outside of the downtown core, I’ve never seen concrete barrier-enforced crosswalks to stop wayward motorists.

    Also, where freeway on-ramps and off-ramps meet city streets, these are considered intersections too, but out of sheer laziness, some municipalities close the entire sidewalk on that side of the block. So just in case an interchange area wasn’t enough of a hellscape, people on foot are funneled like cattle to the slaughter.

    Finally, some good (ish?) developments. Partially in response to public demand, but not actually giving full effort, some municipalities have started to add signs to unmarked crosswalks, at places where pedestrians aren’t prohibited from crossing and they actively do. But these signs aren’t to encourage more pedestrians, but a reminder/beg to motorists to respect the default law on unmarked crosswalks, where pedestrians have first priority.

    Do motorists even recognize these neon yellow/green signs? I’ve not seen evidence of it. And so once again, it’s all theatre, to make it look like lazy municipalities are doing something when they’re not. Same as with “driver awareness campaigns” and equivalent rubbish.

    So yeah, that’s my spiel on bad crosswalk designs: it’s always been a public subsidy towards car welfare.

    • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
      1·
      2 days ago

      I think the law in my state is that pedestrians have right of way at “marked AND unmarked” crosswalks, and every interesection is considered at least an unmarked crosswalk unless explicitly marked as no pedestrian crossing.

      So, if that’s true, I still have right of way on the unmarked crossing, but drivers would be perfectly rational to think I don’t! I mean, if the crosswalk means I have a right of way, then there NOT being a crosswalk would mean I DON’T have right of way. It’s just logic.

      I also learned that pedestrians don’t have ROW crossing mid-block, which kinda sucks because that’s the safest place to cross and I don’t care what anyone says. Unaware turning traffic is the biggest risk to pedestrians, interesections therefore are the worst place to cross.

  • adarza@piefed.caEnglish
    1·
    3 days ago

    probably based on traffic patterns and volume, perhaps visibility plays a role too.

    both are reason why the one in front of our office here does not have two crosswalks across the through street. people still do cross on the unmarked side all the time… but they’re idiots that don’t realize some traffic can’t see them until it’s ‘too late’… they get hit or the car that has to stop suddenly sits awkwardly in the middle of the intersection and becomes a target itself.